Your recipients will receive an email with this envelope shortly and will be able to access it on trellis. You can always see your envelopes by clicking the Inbox on the top right hand corner.
Your subscription has successfully been upgraded.
Sec. 42-420. Determining realized value. (a) Subject to subsection (b) of this section, the amount of the realized value, if used to determine the lessee's liability on termination of a consumer lease, is the sum of:
(1) The amount of the rebate of premiums or charges for insurance, extended warranty, or service or maintenance contract to the extent the rebates are received by the holder; and
(2) One of the following:
(A) The price received by the holder on disposition of the leased goods by sale;
(B) If the goods are re-leased, the total of periodic payments plus the residual value under the new lease, reduced to present value; or
(C) If the goods are not disposed of, the higher of: (i) The best offer for disposition of the goods; or (ii) the fair market value of the goods.
(b) A lessee and holder under a consumer lease may agree at the time of termination on the realized value of the goods, or may agree in the lease or at the time of termination on a method for determining it, and the value so agreed upon or determined, unless unreasonable, is the realized value. An agreed realized value is not unreasonable if the value is determined by an appraiser agreed to by the holder and lessee, or by reference to a generally accepted reference source for goods of the kind.
(c) If the realized value is determined under subparagraph (A) or (B) of subdivision (2) of subsection (a) of this section, the disposition may be by public or private sale or re-lease, at any time and place and on any terms. Every aspect of the disposition, including the method, manner, time, place and terms must be commercially reasonable. Disposition in a wholesale market is not unreasonable.
(d) If a disposition is to a person related to the holder, or a person obligated to the holder under an agreement for recourse, repurchase or the like, the realized value is not less than the fair market value of the goods.
(e) If a disposition is not commercially reasonable, the realized value must be established by reference to the retail market value of goods of the kind and condition at issue.
(P.A. 02-81, S. 31.)
Nov 27, 2023
Superior
Hartford County, CT
Jan 26, 2024
Hartford County
Hartford County, CT
HFH-CV22-6019756-S Superior Court Ansonia Acquisitions I, LLC, Housing Session d/b/a Woodcliff Estates (80 Washington Street Hartford, CT 06106) v. Annette Rodriguez …
Mar 28, 2022
DOCKET NO.: NNH CV-12-6031105S = : SUPERIOR COURT NRT NEW ENGLAND LLC d/b/a Coldwell Banker Residential Brokerage : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF NEW HAVEN V. : ATNEW HAVEN CHRISTOPHER G. L. JONES : SEPTEMBER 23, 2014 MEMORANDUM OF DECISION On July 28, 2014 this court rendered a Memorandum of Decision finding that the plaintiff had proven damages of $34,375.00 on the second count. This court scheduled a hearing to determine the amount of attorney’s fees and costs, and the amount of the total judgmen…
Jul 10, 2012
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, : SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. | AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 AMENDED COMPLA FIRST COUNT 1. is is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-11 0b(a), prohibiting u…
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, f SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH : Plaintiffs i JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. : AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : March 9, 2015 REVISED COMPLAINT FIRST COUNT 1 This is an action brought under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act (hereinafter, "CUTPA"), Chapter 735a Section 42-110g of the Connecticut General Statutes in order to obtain relief against Defendant for alleged violations of General Statutes Section 42-110b(a), prohibiting …
Feb 17, 2015
No. FST-CV15-5014471-S JEREMY COLLINS, z SUPERIOR COURT MOLLY MCCULLOUGH ie Plaintiffs : JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF STAMFORD vs. AT STAMFORD MARGARET MONTANARO Defendant : April 24, 2015 REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT In the above entitled action, the Plaintiffs respectfully request that they be granted leave to file a Second Amended Complaint, which is appended to this request, pursuant to Connecticut Practice Book 10-60(a)(3). BY: St MA. e Jeremy Collins & Molly Mc@ulloug…
Feb 17, 2015
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Please wait a moment while we load this page.